Parshat Ki Tetzeh

Defending the Indefensible

This week's parsha has many actions that are forbidden on moral grounds. We have discussed two of them in previous Sedra Shorts (see The Beautiful captive Woman and The Stubborn and Rebellious Son, below).

This week I would like to discuss the following three cases:

• If a man has two sons from two different wives, he may not give the younger one the first-born rights, even though he may be the first-born of the favorite wife.

• Girls may not be used in religious prostitution ceremonies (kedesha).

• A person should marry wife of a deceased brother if she had no children (yibum).

I bring these three cases because we see Biblical heroes of the Jewish people actually doing these things.

Firstly, Yaakov had two main wives: Rachel and Leah. He loved Rachel while Leah was hated (See Bereshit 29:31). Leah was the first to give birth (Reuven). Rachel eventually had Yoseph. So while Yoseph was the first-born for Rachel, Reuven was Yaakov's first born.

Yet, Reuven did not receive the double portion of tribes that he should have inherited. Shortly before his death, Yaakov took Yoseph's two sons, Ephraim and Menashe, and said: "they are my sons" (ibid 48:8). Essentially, Yoseph became two tribes. He was given the rights of the first born and Reuven was disinherited.

A number of years earlier, we see Yehuda, the father of the tribe that brought Israel its kings, violating the rules of yibum. Two of his sons, Er and Onan died childless. According to the laws of yibum, Tamar, their wife, should have married his third son, Shela. However, Yehuda refused this relationship (See ibid 38:11)

This led to a violation of the third law. In order to induce a child, Tamar dressed herself up as holy prostitute and tempted Yehuda to be intimate with her (ibid 21).

How do we handle these violations of basic moral laws by our heroes? The same way the Bible does.

The Torah does not shy away from difficult decisions our ancestors took – whether it was the ones we just mentioned or Avraham calling Sarah his sister to protect himself, or whether it is King David's adultery and his committing of murder.

We accept that our heroes were human with human failings who sometimes made major mistakes. They were not angels or demi-gods who were flawless. Indeed they achieved greatness despite their flaws – that is what makes them great.

This message is a comforting message for us. We all are human. We all have weaknesses. We all make mistakes. Despite this, we can overcome this and we can achieve greatness.

Last year's Sedra Short on Parshat Ki Tetseh entitled: "The Beautiful Captive Woman" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2008/09/parshat-ki-tetsei-beautiful-captive.html.

Another Sedra Short on Parshat Ki Tetseh entitled: "The Stubborn and Rebellious Son" appears athttp://parshablog.blogspot.com/2007/08/parshat-ki-tetseh-stubborn-and.html.

A further Sedra Short on Parshat Ki Tetseh entitled: "The Impaled Criminal" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/parshat-ki-tetseh-impaled-criminal-in.html.

Parshat Ki Tetseh

The Stubborn and Rebellious Son

This week's parsha lists a group of laws that often makes us feel uncomfortable; none more so than that of the " ben sorer umoreh " – the stubborn and rebellious son. We are told that "all the men of his city shall pelt him to death with stones, and he shall die" (Devarim 21:21). Such actions "shall clear out the evil from among you, and all Israel will listen and fear" (ibid).

The Rabbis appear to also find this law uncomfortable. They write in one place (Sanhedrin 68b) that the child is judged "al shem sofo" - in anticipation of how he will transgress when he matures, i.e. even though he at presents has not done a crime that is deserving of punishment, it is better for him to die now without sin – well that doesn't make me feel any better about this law.

Later they say that the case of a ben sorer umoreh never happened and never will (ibid 71a). They seem to be saying that we shouldn't worry about this rule, after all it never actually happened – yes, we're still a moral people. This doesn't make me feel any better either.

Perhaps we can solve this problem by trying to understand ancient Near Eastern culture and the subject of honor killings – something that still exits today amongst Middle Eastern cultures.

Essentially, when a child (often the daughter) brings dishonor to a family, the culture allows, and even expects the father to restore the family's honor, by killing the child.

This sad and horrible culture existed amongst the culture of ancient Israel. How did the Torah deal with it – simply! Firstly it said "His father and his mother shall take hold of him" (Devarim 21:19). Generally, mothers are not involved in honor killings. It is often done behind their backs and when they know of it, they do their outmost to stop it. This requirement that the mother be involved in the process is likely to reduce the frequency of the honor killing.

The second and more important thing that the Torah did was that it required the parents to "bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place" (ibid). The Torah took honor killings out of the realm of extra judicial practice and put it into the realm of judicial law.

This means that no longer were parents allowed to summarily execute their children if they had shamed their family's honor. They must bring the child to court. It is then the court's right to decide if the child is guilty or not. In this context we can be proud of the Talmudic statement that there never was case of the stubborn and rebellious child – the Bet Din would ensure that no child would be found guilty and thereby, it exorcised this ugly phenomenon from ancient Israel's culture.

Rather than being ashamed of the law of the ben sorer umoreh, we can proud of the efforts our ancient ancestors made to remove immoral practice from our culture.

Last year's Sedra Short on Parshat entiled: "The Impaled Criminal" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html.